Hallek, Michael

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with CLL/SLL that have del11q tend to have relatively short remission durations and shorter overall survival (OS) with standard chemotherapy regimens. Ibrutinib (ibr), a first-in-class, oral, once-daily inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is indicated by the US FDA for the treatment of pts with CLL/SLL and allows for treatment without chemotherapy. In phase 3 studies, treatment with single-agent ibr was superior to treatment with ofatumumab (ofa) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL/SLL (RESONATE; Byrd, N Engl J Med 2013) or chlorambucil (clb) in treatment-naïve (TN) CLL/SLL (RESONATE-2; Burger, N Engl J Med 2015); treatment with ibr + bendamustine/rituximab (BR) was also superior to treatment with BR in R/R CLL/SLL (HELIOS; Chanan-Khan, Lancet Oncol 2016). We examined the outcome of pts in these 3 studies who did or did not have del11q to determine the impact of del11q on clinical outcomes. Methods: In RESONATE, pts with R/R CLL/SLL received ibr 420 mg/day until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity (tox) vs ofa for up to 24 weeks (300 mg week 1, 2000 mg weekly for 7 weeks, 2000 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks). In RESONATE-2, pts ≥65 years of age with TN CLL/SLL (excluding del17p) received ibr 420 mg/day until PD or tox vs clb 0.5 mg/kg (up to max of 0.8 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (≤12 cycles). In HELIOS, pts with R/R CLL/SLL (excluding del17p) received BR (≤6 cycles) with or without ibr 420 mg/day (starting on day 2 of cycle 1) followed by single-agent ibr or placebo continued until PD or tox. Data from pts in the 3 studies were pooled (ibr pool, comparator pool) and analyzed based on whether or not their CLL/SLL had del11q. We performed a multivariate analysis to examine for risk factors prognostic for survival (del11q del17p, age, sex, race, current Rai stage, baseline ECOG PS, number of prior therapies, cytopenias; no multiplicity adjustment). Results: A total of 1210 pts with del11q data were included in the analysis: 609 in the ibr pool (179 with del11q, 430 without del11q) vs 601 in the comparator pool (149 with del11q, 452 without del11q). Demographics and baseline characteristics were generally similar in pts regardless of del11q status; differences of more than 10% included proportions with bulky disease ≥5 cm (63% vs 49%) and unmutated IGHV (88% vs 72%) in pts with or without del11q, respectively. Median lymphadenopathy and absolute lymphocyte counts were also higher in pts with del11q. At the time of the primary analysis, median treatment durations in the ibr pool were 20.0 mo with del11q and 18.7 mo without del11q; in the comparator pool 5.3 mo with del11q and 8.5 mo without del11q. Overall, ibr-treated pts had higher overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS, Figure) and OS than comparator-treated pts regardless of del11q status. In the ibr pool, the presence of del11q was associated with a trend of longer PFS and OS while in the comparator pool, pts with del11q had shorter PFS (Figure, Table), as compared to pts without del11q. Results were similar when excluding pts with del17p (10% of ibr pool [6%/11% with/without del11q] and 9% of comparator pool [8%/10% with/without del11q]; Table). By multivariate analysis, in the comparator pool, del11q, male sex, >1 prior therapy, presence of cytopenias, and unmutated IGHV (in R/R only) were associated with shorter PFS. However, these differences were not found in the ibr pool. The presence of del11q did not unfavorably impact the tempo of reductions in lymphadenopathy for ibr-treated pts, but did for comparator-treated pts. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in ibr- and comparator-treated pts (12% [9% vs 13% with/without del11q] vs 13% [12% vs 13% with/without del11q]). Deaths within 30 days of last dose occurred in 31 pts (5% [3% vs 6% with/without del11q]) in the ibr pool and 28 pts (5% [6% vs 4% with/without del11q]) in the comparator pool. Conclusions: Treatment with ibr was superior to comparator regardless of del11q status; the benefit of ibr was most marked for pts with CLL/SLL with del11q. Presence of del11q was associated with a trend of longer PFS and OS in ibr-treated pts and shorter PFS and lower ORR in comparator-treated pts. By multivariate analysis, presence of del11q was a prognostic factor for shorter PFS for comparator-treated pts, but not for ibr-treated pts. Disclosures Kipps: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Demirkan:Amgen: Consultancy. Coutre:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barrientos:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy. O'Brien:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fraser:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jaeger:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Cramer:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Astellas: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Hoffman La-Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Salman:Janssen Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Solman:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Cheng:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Phelps:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ninomoto:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; Amgen, Inc.: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen: Employment, Other: Leadership; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. James:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Hallek:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with deletion of the short arm of chromosome 17 (del 17p) follow an aggressive clinical course and demonstrate a median survival of less than 2 years in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. Ibrutinib (ImbruvicaTM), a first-in-class Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, has been approved for previously treated patients with CLL and for patients with del 17p CLL. We report results from the primary analysis of the Phase II RESONATETM-17 (PCYC-1117-CA) study, designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-agent ibrutinib for treatment of patients with R/R del 17p CLL or small lymphocytic leukemia (SLL). Methods: Patients with del 17p CLL or SLL who failed at least one therapy were enrolled to receive 420 mg oral ibrutinib once daily until progression. All patients receiving at least one dose of ibrutinib were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) per an independent review committee (IRC). Other endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety of ibrutinib. Results: Among 144 treated patients (137 with CLL, 7 with SLL), the median age was 64 (48% 65 years or older) and all had del 17p. Baseline characteristics included 63% of patients with Rai Stage III or IV disease, 49% with bulky lymphadenopathy of at least 5 cm, and 10% with lymphadenopathy of least 10 cm. The median baseline absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) was 32.9 x 109/L with 57% of patients with a baseline ALC at least 25.0 x 109/L. Baseline beta-2 microglobulin levels were at least 3.5 mg/L in 78% of patients (range 1.8-19.8 mg/L), and lactate dehydrogenase levels were at least 350 U/L in 24% of patients (range 127-1979 U/L). A median of 2 prior therapies (range 1-7) was reported. Investigator-assessed ORR was 82.6% including 17.4% partial response with lymphocytosis (PR-L). Complete response (CR)/complete response with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi) were reported in 3 patients. IRC-assessed ORR is pending. At a median follow up of 13.0 months (range 0.5-16.7 months), the median PFS (Figure 1) and DOR by investigator determination had not been reached. At 12 months, 79.3% were alive and progression-free, and 88.3% of responders were progression-free. Progressive disease was reported in 20 patients (13.9%). Richter transformation was reported in 11 of these patients (7.6%), 7 of the cases occurring within the first 24 weeks of treatment. Prolymphocytic leukemia was reported in 1 patient. The most frequently reported adverse events (AE) of any grade were diarrhea (36%; 2% Grade 3-4), fatigue (30%; 1% Grade 3-4), cough (24%; 1% Grade 3-4), and arthralgia (22%; 1% Grade 3-4). Atrial fibrillation of any grade was reported in 11 patients (7.6%; 3.5% Grade 3-4). Seven patients reported basal or squamous cell skin cancer and 1 patient had plasma cell myeloma. Most frequently reported Grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (14%), anemia (8%), pneumonia (8%), and hypertension (8%). Major hemorrhage was reported in 7 patients (4.9%, all Grade 2 or 3). Study treatment was discontinued in 16 patients (11.1%) due to AEs with 8 eventually having fatal events (pneumonia, sepsis, myocardial or renal infarction, health deterioration). At the time of data cut, the median treatment duration was 11.1 months, and 101 of 144 patients (70%) continued treatment with ibrutinib. Conclusions: In the largest prospective trial dedicated to the study of del 17p CLL/SLL, ibrutinib demonstrated marked efficacy in terms of ORR, DOR, and PFS, with a favorable risk-benefit profile. At a median follow up of 13 months, the median DOR had not yet been reached; 79.3% of patients remained progression-free at 12 months, consistent with efficacy observed in earlier studies (Byrd, NEJM 2013;369:32-42). The PFS in this previously treated population compares favorably to that of treatment-naïve del 17p CLL patients receiving fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) (Hallek, Lancet 2010;376:1164-74) or alemtuzumab (Hillmen, J Clin Oncol 2007;10:5616-23) with median PFS of 11 months. The AEs are consistent with those previously reported for ibrutinib (Byrd, NEJM 2014;371:213-23). These results support ibrutinib as an effective therapy for patients with del 17p CLL/SLL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures O'Brien: Amgen, Celgene, GSK: Consultancy; CLL Global Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Emergent, Genentech, Gilead, Infinity, Pharmacyclics, Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Jones:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Coutre:Janssen, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mato:Pharamcyclics, Genentech, Celegene, Millennium : Speakers Bureau. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Gilead, Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:Pharmacyclics and Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siddiqi:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Furman:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Brown:Sanofi, Onyx, Vertex, Novartis, Boehringer, GSK, Roche/Genentech, Emergent, Morphosys, Celgene, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Gilead: Consultancy. Stevens-Brogan:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Li:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Fardis:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Clow:Pharmacyclics: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Chu:Pharmacyclics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:Janssen, Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Pharmacyclics, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND. The detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) at the level of 0.01%/10-4 or above is a strong independent predictor of reduced progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with CLL treated with chemoimmunotherapy. Although newer agents such as B-cell receptor pathway inhibitors can result in prolonged survival without achieving complete response, there remains a important role for MRD analysis in assessing therapeutic strategies aimed at disease eradication and cure. This is particularly important in front-line trials for fit patients which now require at least five years of follow-up if PFS is used as an endpoint. The feasibility of using MRD as a surrogate or intermediate endpoint for accelerated approval of new treatments is under review by regulatory agencies but further prospective validation is required. At the same time technology is rapidly evolving and high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies now detect MRD at the 0.0001%/10-6 level. It is therefore important to determine the most effective approaches for quantifying MRD that are compatible with previous studies but sufficiently sensitive for current treatments. AIMS. This collaborative project had two objectives. First, to identify the simplest and most flexible flow cytometry panel capable of detecting MRD at the 0.01%/10-4 or lower, that is compatible with published data and independent of instrument/reagent manufacturer. Second, to compare the flow cytometry approach with HTS analysis using the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA). METHODS AND RESULTS. A core panel of antibodies for MRD detection was identified by testing an 8-marker combination in 52 samples (27 post-treatment and 25 dilution study) and re-analysing data with serial exclusion of single markers to determine redundancy. A 1-tube core panel of CD19, CD20, CD5, CD43, CD79b, and CD81 was identified and validated against the previously published 2-tube 6-marker and 4-tube 4-marker ERIC panels in 76 samples (19 post-treatment and 57 dilution study). The results showed good concordance (for log-transformed data above the LoQ, linearity=0.977, Pearson correlation co-efficient=0.983, average difference=0.026 log, 95% limit of agreement 0.20log) and a limit of detection of 0.001%/10-5 for the 1-tube core panel. Inter-operator variation was similar to CML MRD monitoring with both experienced operators, or inexperienced cytometrists after ~1 hour of specific education, achieving a 95% limit of agreement less than 0.3log in samples with MRD levels ranging from 0.0001 – 100%. The flow cytometry approach was compared with the ClonoSEQ HTS assay in 109 samples (21 dilution study and 88 post-treatment samples, complete data currently available on 13/88). The assay was applicable to the vast majority CLL patients, often with two clonal markers. There was 94% concordance at the 0.01% (10-4) threshold (15 samples with ≥0.01% CLL by both methods, 14 samples with <0.01% by both methods, 1 sample with 0.03% CLL by HTS and <0.003% CLL by flow cytometry, and 1 sample with 0.005% CLL by HTS and 0.012% by flow cytometry. HTS detected CLL IGH sequences in 22% (7/31) samples with no detectable CLL cells by flow cytometry (i.e. CLL level 0.0001-0.001%, 3/13 patient samples and 4/18 dilution samples). HTS demonstrated a relatively high variability in quantification, as seen in previous studies, but with a clear superiority in the limit of detection and good linearity (linearity=0.905, Pearson correlation co-efficient=0.870, average difference=0.078 log, 95% limit of agreement 1.5 log). CONCLUSIONS. The 1-tube 6-marker flow cytometry core panel is compatible with published studies, manufacturer-independent and flexible, providing directly quantitative results to 0.001%/10-5 without requiring a pre-treatment sample. HTS requires further work to standardise the quantitative analysis and prospective validation but the ClonoSEQ assay is applicable to >95% of CLL patients, does not require viable cells and is extremely sensitive, detecting residual disease in a significant proportion of cases with <0.01% CLL. The results indicate that flow cytometry and HTS are complementary technologies with a combined approach offering the most reliable way of quantifying CLL at the 0.01%/10-4 threshold while allowing higher sensitivity in clinical trials aimed at disease eradication. Disclosures Rawstron: Roche: Honoraria; Biogen Idec: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; BD Biosciences: Intrasure reagent Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Williamson:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sanders:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Robins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Hallek:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Hillmen:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3925 Introduction: CLL patients (pts) who relapse following purine-analog or bendamustine-based treatments have a poor prognosis. These pts have limited therapeutic options and novel agents with alternative mechanisms of action are needed. Several phase 1 and 2 trials in rel/ref CLL showed promising activity with escalating dose regimens of lenalidomide (LEN). In other phase II studies improved clinical responses to lenalidomide appeared to correlate with dose levels > 5mg/day. This phase 2 trial investigates the safety of LEN initiated at 3 different starting doses followed by a step-wise dose escalation as tolerated in rel/ref CLL. Methods: In this ongoing trial, eligible pts with rel/ref CLL who have received ≥ 1 prior treatment regimen containing purine-analog or bendamustine are being enrolled. The objectives of this study are to evaluate primarily the safety and secondarily the efficacy of different LEN dose regimens. Pts are randomized 1:1:1 to receive a double-blinded starting dose of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg oral LEN on days 1–28 of each 28-day cycle. In all 3 treatment arms, the dose is escalated by 5 mg increments every 28 days to reach a maximum dose of 25 mg/d, depending on tolerability. In instances of poor tolerability, dose reductions also occur in 5 mg steps. Pts are stratified by relapsed versus refractory status to their last purine-analog or bendamustine-based treatment regimen and according to age (< 65 vs ≥ 65 years). Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis comprises of oral hydration and allopurinol 300 mg/day and is initiated ≥ 3 days prior to starting study drug and for a minimum of the first 3 treatment cycles. A total of 105 pts are planned for enrollment to the study. Per protocol, unblinded interim analyses were conducted by the independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) after 18 subjects completed 1 cycle and continue at 13-week intervals. Results: To date, 95 pts are enrolled at a median age of 64 years (range 32–81). Enrolled pts are primarily male (67%) and Caucasian (92%). Cytogenetic data are available for 73 pts; 21% have del(17p), 55% have del(13q), 25% have del(11q), and of 72 patients evaluable for trisomy 12, 11 patients (15%) tested positive. IGVH is unmutated in 77% of 77 evaluable pts and 44% of 84 evaluable pts are ZAP70-positive. Based on the Binet and Rai staging systems 9 (10%), 25 (26%) and 24 (25%) of subjects are stage A, B and C, respectively; 7 (7%), 12 (13%) and 16 (17%) subjects are low, intermediate or high-risk disease, respectively. For 2 (2%) subjects the Binet/Rai staging is currently unknown. Overall, 19 pts (20%) received prior bendamustine-containing treatment and 71 pts (75%) received prior fludarabine-based treatment. The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1–10). Most common hematological grade ≥ 3 AEs include neutropenia (62%) and thrombocytopenia (34%). At baseline, 19% of pts presented with grade 1–2 neutropenia. The most common non-hematological ≥ grade 3 AEs include pneumonia (13%), tumor flare (13%), and fatigue (11%). TLS was reported in 3 pts (3%): grade 1, 3, and 4. In total, 8 grade 5 events were reported, 3 of which were suspected to be related to LEN: 2 cases of pneumonia and 1 death for unknown cause. At the time of the cut-off, 59 pts (62%) have discontinued treatment. Most common reasons for treatment discontinuation include disease progression (n = 20) and AEs (n = 20). To date, 47 pts (49%) have dose escalated above their starting dose levels of which 12 patients escalated to the highest dose level (25 mg daily). 18 subjects have had no dose level reduction or escalations and 1 patient is still in the first cycle of the study. Average duration of treatment is 6.5 cycles, and median number of cycles is 4. Efficacy evaluations are completed monthly after 3 months of study drug treatment. At time of the data reporting, 5 pts were on study drug but did not reach the first assessment at cycle. For the 90 pts evaluable for response, the investigator's assessment indicates 2 pts (2%) reached CR, 36 (40%) achieved PR, 33 (37%) patients had SD, and 19 (21%) pts progressed. Conclusion: The independent DMC, as of 14 June, 2012 (N=95), recommended that accrual into all three treatment arms should continue as planned, suggesting all three starting doses were well tolerated. To date, the ORR is 42% and 49% of pts were dose escalated at least once. In this rel/ref CLL population LEN appears active, and completion of accrual will clarify the appropriate dose at which to initiate therapy. Disclosures: Wendtner: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: use of lenalidomie in relapsed/refractory CLL. Hallek:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hillmen:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Gregory:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kipps:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Purse:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mei:Celgene Corporation: Employment.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with CLL/SLL who use unmutated IGHV (u-CLL) have a less favorable outcome with standard chemotherapy than pts who use mutated IGHV (m-CLL). Ibrutinib (ibr) inhibits B-cell receptor signaling through Bruton’s tyrosine kinase and has robust clinical activity against CLL. This integrated analysis of 3 phase 3 studies examined the impact of IGHV status on ibr- and comparator (comp)-treated pts. Methods: Pooled data from 3 studies of ibr (420 mg/d) in CLL/SLL pts (RESONATE: relapsed/refractory [R/R] pts, ibr vs ≤ 24 weeks ofatumumab; RESONATE-2: treatment-naïve [TN] pts ≥ 65 yrs of age [no del17p], ibr vs ≤ 12 cycles chlorambucil; HELIOS: R/R pts [no del17p], ≤ 6 cycles bendamustine-rituximab with ibr vs placebo) were analyzed by IGHV status. Analyses included Kaplan-Meier method (overall survival [OS]; progression-free survival [PFS]); log-rank test (group comparisons); and Cox multivariate analysis (prognostic factors; Table). Results: For 491 ibr- (366 u-CLL, 125 m-CLL) and 494 comp-treated (351 u-CLL, 143 m-CLL) pts with IGHV data, baseline characteristics were similar for u-CLL vs m-CLL, except for the proportions of pts who were TN (17 vs 31%), had bulky disease (60 vs 37%), or had CLL cells with del11q (32 vs 16%). Median follow up was 21.4 mos for ibr and 20.6 mos for comp. PFS and OS were similar for u-CLL and m-CLL ibr-treated pts; u-CLL had poorer outcomes than m-CLL in comp-treated pts, which remained after adjustment for prognostic factors (Table). Ibr treatment was more effective than comp regardless of IGHV status. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between groups. For ibr vs comp pts (u-CLL/m-CLL): serious AEs: 49% (50%/47%) vs 36.5% (37%/35%); AEs that led to discontinuation: 12% (11%/15%) vs 13% (13%/14%); death within 30 days of last dose: 5% (6%/3%) vs 5% (6%/2%). Conclusions: U-CLL was an adverse predictor of outcome for comp-treated, but not for ibr-treated pts. Table.Efficacy Outcomes in Ibr- and Comparator-Treated Patients by IGHV Mutation StatusIbrutinib (N=491)Comparator (N =494)u-CLL (n=717)m-CLL (n=268)u-CLL(n=366): m-CLL(n=125)u-CLL(n=351): m-CLL(n=143)Ibr(n=366): Comp(n=351)Ibr (n=125): Comp (n=143)PFS24-month rate HR78%:81%10%:32%78%:10%81%:32%0.93a1.99a0.12b0.21bp = 0.78p &lt; 0.0001p &lt; 0.0001p &lt;0.0001Adjusted HRc1.02a1.94a0.11b0.17bp = 0.93p &lt; 0.0001p &lt; 0.0001p &lt; 0.0001OS24-month rate HR88%:89%78%:87%88%:78%89%:87%0.95a1.96a0.49b0.85b,ep = 0.86p = 0.02p &lt; 0.01p = 0.66Adjusted HRc1.21a2.10a0.49bNAp =0.57p = 0.01p &lt; 0.001Response ratesu-CLLm-CLLu-CLLm-CLLIbrCompIbrCompORR, %d8990475189479051p = 0.96p = 0.36p &lt; 0.0001p &lt; 0.0001CR, %d221546224156p = 0.10p = 0.44p &lt; 0.0001p = 0.01CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; HR, hazard ratio; ORR, overall response rate; NA, not applicable. aHR &lt; 1 favors unmutated. bHR &lt; 1 favors ibrutinib. cMultivariate Cox model adjusted for age, sex, current Rai stage, baseline ECOG performance status score, del11q, del17p, number of prior therapies, and cytopenias. dp value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. eInsufficient number of events prevents meaningful analysis, only 13 and 16 events observed in ibr and comp groups, respectively, and 46 (32%) pts in comp arm crossed over to ibr arm; interpret results with caution. Citation Format: Thomas J. Kipps, Graeme Fraser, Steven Coutre, Jennifer R. Brown, Jacqueline C. Barrientos, Paul M. Barr, John C. Byrd, Susan M. O'Brien, Marie-Sarah Dilhuydy, Stephen Devereux, Ulrich Jaeger, Carol Moreno, Paula Cramer, Stephan Stilgenbauer, Asher A. Chanan-Khan, Michelle Mahler, Mariya Salman, Mei Cheng, Anil Londhe, Joi Ninomoto, Angela Howes, Danelle James, Michael Hallek. Unmutated IGHV is not an adverse predictor of outcome to therapy with ibrutinib in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT158. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-CT158

Abstract Purpose: We sought to investigate whether B cell receptor immunoglobulin (BcR IG) stereotypy is associated with particular clinicobiological features among chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients expressing mutated BcR IG (M-CLL) encoded by the IGHV4-34 gene, and also ascertain whether these associations could refine prognostication. Experimental Design: In a series of 19,907 CLL cases with available immunogenetic information, we identified 339 IGHV4-34–expressing cases assigned to one of the four largest stereotyped M-CLL subsets, namely subsets #4, #16, #29 and #201, and investigated in detail their clinicobiological characteristics and disease outcomes. Results: We identified shared and subset-specific patterns of somatic hypermutation (SHM) among patients assigned to these subsets. The greatest similarity was observed between subsets #4 and #16, both including IgG-switched cases (IgG-CLL). In contrast, the least similarity was detected between subsets #16 and #201, the latter concerning IgM/D-expressing CLL. Significant differences between subsets also involved disease stage at diagnosis and the presence of specific genomic aberrations. IgG subsets #4 and #16 emerged as particularly indolent with a significantly (P &lt; 0.05) longer time-to-first-treatment (TTFT; median TTFT: not yet reached) compared with the IgM/D subsets #29 and #201 (median TTFT: 11 and 12 years, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings support the notion that BcR IG stereotypy further refines prognostication in CLL, superseding the immunogenetic distinction based solely on SHM load. In addition, the observed distinct genetic aberration landscapes and clinical heterogeneity suggest that not all M-CLL cases are equal, prompting further research into the underlying biological background with the ultimate aim of tailored patient management. Clin Cancer Res; 23(17); 5292–301. ©2017 AACR.

LBA7005 Background: The phase III HELIOS study evaluated the first-in-class, oral covalent BTK inhibitor ibrutinib in combination with BR (BR+ibr) vs BR plus placebo (BR+plb) in patients (pts) with previously treated CLL/SLL. The preplanned interim analysis reported here showed that the primary end point was met, upon which the IDMC recommended unblinding the study. Methods: Pts received BR ( ≤ 6 cycles) and were randomized 1:1 to ibr (420 mg daily) or plb. Purine analog refractoriness was a stratification factor. Pts with del17p ( > 20% of cells) were excluded. Primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) per IRC. Results: 578 pts were randomized (289 per arm); median age 64 yrs; 38% Rai Stage III/IV; median 2 prior therapies. 6 cycles of BR were completed in 83% and 78% of pts in the ibr and plb arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 17.2 months, IRC-assessed PFS was significantly longer with BR+ibr vs BR+plb (median not reached vs 13.3 months; HR: 0.203, 95% CI: 0.150-0.276, P< 0.0001); PFS results were consistent across high-risk subgroups. ORR and CR/CRi rates were 82.7% vs 67.8% (P< 0.0001) and 10.4% vs 2.8%. Median OS was not reached. 90 pts (31%) in the BR+plb arm with confirmed PD crossed over to receive ibr, as permitted per the protocol. Incidence of most AEs was similar between arms. The most common all-grade AEs with BR+ibr and BR+plb were neutropenia (58.2% vs 54.7%) and nausea (36.9% vs 35.2%); most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (53.7% vs 50.5%) and thrombocytopenia (15.0% each arm). Rates of grade 3/4 atrial fibrillation were 2.8% and 0.7%, and major hemorrhage were 2.1% and 1.7%. Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) was improved with BR+ibr vs BR+plb. Conclusions: The addition of ibr to BR reduced the risk of progression or death by 80% compared with BR+plb. ORR was also significantly improved. Safety of BR+ibr was consistent with the known profiles for BR and ibr. The data further support ibr as an important treatment option for pts with previously treated CLL/SLL. Clinical trial information: EudraCT No. 2012-000600-15; UTN No. U1111-1135-3745.